Related papers: Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…

A critical comment on [N. Lanahan--Tremblay and V. Faraoni, 2007, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, {\bf 24}, 5667, arXiv:0709.4414] is given discussing the well-formulation of the Chauchy problem for $f(R)$-gravity in metric-affine theories.

In a recent article [Phys. Rev. A 57, 1572 (1998)] Caticha has concluded that ``nonlinear variants of quantum mechanics are inconsistent.'' In this note we identify what it is that nonlinear quantum theories have been shown to be…

We show that the mistakes pointed out by Rana and Parashar [Phys. Rev. A 87, 016301 (2013)] do not invalidate the main conclusion of our work [Phys. Rev. A 86, 024302 (2012)]. We show that the errors affected only a particular application…

I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].

We comment on a recent Letter in Phys. Rev. Lett. (M. Kafesaki, R. S. Penciu, and E. N. Economou, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 6050 (2000))

We refute a recent claim in the literature of a "new" quantum deformation of GL(2).

Erroneous statements on the mathematical and physical properties of the double-Kerr solution made in a recent paper (Class. Quantum Grav. 21 (2004) 2723) are commented.

The proofs of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 4.1 in Le\~ao and Ohashi (2013) are incomplete. The reason is a wrong statement in Remark 2.2. The hypotheses and statements of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 4.1 in Le\~ao and Ohashi (2013) remain…

Inconsistencies are pointed out in a recent proposal [L. Diosi, Phys. Rev. A 80, 064104 (2009); arXiv:0905.3908v1] for a quantum version of the classical linear Boltzmann equation.

Critical comments on the recent papers supporting the idea of resilient quantum computations are presented.

In a recent Letter [B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, and H. Spiesberger, Phys. Rev. D 103, L111303 (2021)], a calculation of the parity violating 6S-7S E1 amplitude in Cs is reported, claiming an uncertainty of just 0.3%. In this Comment, we point…

A comment on a recent Letter by Baker and Kawashima (Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 994 (1995)).

We refute the criticisms of our work on strong-coupling in the presence of an incoherent pumping.

We review the derivations and conclusions made in Caravelli and Modesto (2010 \textit{Class. Quantum Grav.} \textbf{27} 245022, arXiv:1006.0232) and show that most of the analysis performed there is not valid.

We argue that the experiment described in the recent Letter by Zu et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150401 (2012); arXiv:1207.0059v1] does not allow to make conclusions about contextuality, since the measurement of the observables as well as…

After stating the author's ontic position, a collage of relevant thoughts of some distinguished foundationally-minded physicists are quoted and polemically commented upon. Thus, a kind of historical background of the recent ontic…

This is the reply to a Comment by R. F. O'Connell (Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 028901) on a paper written by the author (B. Vacchini, ``Completely positive quantum dissipation'', Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 1374, arXiv:quant-ph/0002094).

In the paper [Hong-Shi Zong, Wei-Min Sun, Phys. Lett. B 640 (2006) 196], the authors claim that our proof of the inconsistency of the ladder approximation to QCD [Phys. Lett. B 611 (2005) 129] was incorrect. However, their claim is based on…

In a recent series of papers Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel have outlined and contrasted two different views about what we now call Bell's theorem. They also assert that Bell presented these two different versions at different times. This…